Bitter Apple to stop barking and behavior

I don't have any good uses other than to stop chewing.  I've heard people say to use it to stop dogs biting, but I have yet to have that work with any animal.  If the animal were chewing on my hand, it might work, but not just the quick bite and release they usually do.  But, if the animal is chewing on my hand, bitter apple is not going to be my first reaction!  I have used a spray bottle to stop barking for Colton and that worked, but it was water, not bitter apple.  It just stops him long enough that I can give him a quiet command and reward him...now, he knows quiet.  

Bitter apple is to be applied to furniture or whatever you don't want your dog to chew.

It should not be sprayed in a dog's mouth for any reason, because it is ineffective to do so.

Spraying something at or inside the dog is one of those strategies that make sense to the human, but can be totally misinterpreted by the dog. Here is what I mean:

You see a simple cause-and-effect relationship. Dog bites or chews, dog gets bitter apple in mouth. From your perspective, the dog will learn what he can and cannot chew or bite because he will or will not get a spray of nasty in his mouth.

The problem is that the dog sees it really differently, and what the dog picks up from this aversive experience could vary a lot. He could see:

*When I chew in presence of human, human gets aggressive. Don't chew in front of human. You wind up with a sneaky dog.

*When I chew, human gets aggressive. Don't trust human in general, and stand ground re: chewing. You wind up with a power struggle.

*Human gets aggressive for reasons I don't understand. Shut down totally in presence of human. You wind up with a cowering, timid dog that is afraid of you.

All of these outcomes are far away from what you want--they don't get to the problem, which is chewing. This is because, in general, if you are going to use an aversive it should never ever look like it is coming from you. Aversives confuse and destroy trust when they are linked to a specfic relationship.

That's why covering your coveted sofa leg or bookshelf or powerstrip with bitter apple or tiger balm or some other yucchy substance is very effective. It's not about you and your relationship with the dog, and so the message you're sending is clear:

You are simply telling the dog that powerstrips and furniture taste bad. Pair that with some things to chew that are genuinely delicious, like cow hooves or bully sticks or bones, and you will have a dog that eventually can see what is "his" and what is "yours", although he is not seeing it that way. He is looking at it in terms of what is appetizing and what is not.

And this thing with the growling is retarded, sorry. I can't help but judge that. You want your dog to feel free to growl. If your dog can't growl, then your dog will just proceed to biting without any warning if it's placed in a situation where he feels like he's threatened.

I hate it when people say to punish dogs for growling. I encourage growling and barking, because that is a precursor to biting. When you pop a dog-or in this case, spray in the mouth-everytime a dog barks or growls, you develop a dog that bites with outh a warning. I use on/off behaviors. I taught my dog Joy to bark, and then I would tell her to hush, and she stops. Same thing with jumping. I lure her to jump on me, the couch, the pause table, or a chair, and teach her to "off" on command.

This is *kind of* similar to pitbulls, and the reason why most of them bite without warning. If a dog growled while the owner was pulling the dog off of another dog in the pits, the dog was brought out back and was beaten or shot to death.

Bootom line: If my dog growls, I don't correct, I just say OK and back away. SOMETHING I was doing was upsetting, so I shouldn't continue.

if you must correct your dog, you should try to do it in a way that it seems like the correction doesn't come from you-- bitter apple smeared on the furniture is an excellent example.  If' you get in the habit of spraying your dog as a correction, guess what, he'll quickly learn to only-be-good when you are standing there holding a spray bottle. 

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

if you must correct your dog, you should try to do it in a way that it seems like the correction doesn't come from you

This can be useful as a remote aversive technique.

I see things differently.

Some do not believe that corrections made from leader to follower have value as a social learning process, if you believe direct corrections mean "negative attention is better than no attention" (which is pure human psychology), or are a pure learning theorist where all the dog has to do is associate cause=effect (or, do this=yuck![]), without any communication (social learning) from another living being.

Personally, I have a different take and approach.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

bitter apple smeared on the furniture is an excellent example. 

...to create an unpleasant experience, so that the dog will simply transfer it's mouthing, venting, frustrated, or neurotic "oral" release elsewhere, doesn't resolve any underlying issues...

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

you get in the habit of spraying your dog as a correction, guess what, he'll quickly learn to only-be-good when you are standing there holding a spray bottle. 

I agree, and what would a person doing this be communicating anyway?

"I am an unpredictable human who will put yucky stuff in your mouth and communicate nothing more in the process...except maybe a weird, angry, frustrated demeanor - which does not say "calm, assertive", trustwothy, leadership material to the most dogs, in the first place. []

I don't have a problem with certain remote aversives, as long as they serve as a legitimate solution depending on what the real problem is to begin with. 

At least an e-collar or a mouse trap can be "truly" remote.

Some do not believe that corrections made from leader to follower have value as a social learning process, if you believe direct corrections mean "negative attention is better than no attention" (which is pure human psychology), or are a pure learning theorist where all the dog has to do is associate cause=effect (or, do this=yuck!), without any communication (social learning) from another living being.

 
not really sure what you're trying to say, but most dogs who are directly corrected by their owner do indeed learn cause=effect, as in owner is cause of correction, so they'd better be good when owner is there. Might work for specific obedience commands where the owner is always going to be there when the command is issued, but sure don't work for basic manners.
All those dogs that happily lounge on the couch when owner isn't there, happily raid the garbage when the owner isn't there, happily jump up on everyone except the owner, bark non-stop when the owner isn't there, chew the furniture when the owner isn't there, dig giant craters when the owner isn't there, etc. All have learned cause= effect pretty well. Owner is cause of correction.

quoteRIGINAL: mudpuppy bitter apple smeared on the furniture is an excellent example.  ...to create an unpleasant experience, so that the dog will simply transfer it's mouthing, venting, frustrated, or neurotic "oral" release elsewhere, doesn't resolve any underlying issues..

Angelique, can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Perhaps I misunderstand, but in my experience, all dogs chew, not just neurotic ones. They chew because they are puppies with changing faces and teething pain. Because it feels good. Because it reduces stress and is fun. I don't want my dog to stop chewing--that would be impossible and pointless--I don't see the "underlying issue" I am avoiding in telling my dog what is good to chew and what tastes bad.

I can see that a dog that never gets to do anything *but* chew because it's in the house all day is, perhaps, chewing out of frustration. But even dogs like mine--who are outside running around much of most days--enjoy a good chew.

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

quoteRIGINAL: mudpuppy bitter apple smeared on the furniture is an excellent example.  ...to create an unpleasant experience, so that the dog will simply transfer it's mouthing, venting, frustrated, or neurotic "oral" release elsewhere, doesn't resolve any underlying issues..

Angelique, can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Perhaps I misunderstand, but in my experience, all dogs chew, not just neurotic ones. They chew because they are puppies with changing faces and teething pain. Because it feels good. Because it reduces stress and is fun. I don't want my dog to stop chewing--that would be impossible and pointless--I don't see the "underlying issue" I am avoiding in telling my dog what is good to chew and what tastes bad.
 

 
In a way, you're already answered your own question. It comes down to evaluating the dog's situation. Puppies chew for a reason, dogs chew naturally by nature, but also to relieve boredom, frustation, or pent up energy...and sometimes, in a lonely state of anxiety they chew things which are heavy with our scent (cellphones, shoes, socks, bedding) simply to be close to us while feeling anxiety. I always push for owners to understand that the chewing of personal items is not out of "spite". []
 
We just have to look to the "cause", set the dog up for success, address, or manage the chewing, rather than simply make the chewing aversive, first.
 

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

I can see that a dog that never gets to do anything *but* chew because it's in the house all day is, perhaps, chewing out of frustration. But even dogs like mine--who are outside running around much of most days--enjoy a good chew.
 

 
Indeed! And chewing is "natural" to a dog, as is grooming. But, have you ever seen a dog that becomes a neuritic licker or groomer? 
 
My very first rescue was a neurotic groomer - caused by combination of a flea alergy, lack of exercise, lack of leadership, and conflicting signals between the household members.

Hey Angelique,

Not to nitpick, but because I am genuinely curious. Aren't we saying the same thing?

I mean, I get the sense in your posts that you belabor the question "why" because you want to be polemical, and I am wondering if perhaps I misunderstand you.

You don't know any more about why a dog chews than I do, or for that matter, than Jean Donaldson does. And you have the exact same thing to say about why that she does, or I do. It's a normal dog behavior that can get out of hand when a dog is otherwise understimulated.

So why focus on "why?" From my perspective, it *looks* like you're doing it to be "anti-Donaldson." But I assume that you are smarter than that--that it can't just be because Donaldson tends to structure her thinking around getting rid of "why." I assume that you are getting something specific out of thinking about dogs in terms of the word "why." But I don't understand what it is. I get frustrated when I think about "why", because no matter how many times I ask my dog, he refuses to answer the question to my satisfaction, and anything I come up with is a guess... I am not a dog.

If it's not too big a question... why do you ask why? I swear I am not trying to pick a fight. I really want to know.

Yes, we are kinda saying the same thing.

My own perspective deals with digging into the cause, rather than focusing on treating the symtoms.

An unconnected example of how I look at things might be:

If there were a rash caused by an food allergy, you could either try different treatments for the rash, or you could stop eating the food which is causing the allergy to begin with.

Don't know what you mean when referring to Jean Donaldson though...

Oh, the allergy example is helpful. You have mentioned before that you think of clicker training as symptom-oriented, and I think I understand what you mean by that now.

Can we continue the example, because I think that clicker training is actually pretty holistic, like your example?

What if you didn't know what an allergy is, or that your rash was caused by a food? How would you figure it out?

I would argue that you'd use empirical data--what you can observe. In my experience, the emphasis on "symptoms" that you see in clicker training is actually an emphasis on what is observable. Dog training is full of concepts that are made by human minds and projected onto the dog, with varying degrees of success. I think that clicker training is moving away from that by focusing on what can be observed. I think that clicker trainers work with what they can observe because their goal is to get to that holistic solution--much like you describe.

Isn't this going way off topic now?
 
And you know what, mere accumalation of observational evidence is not proof.  Apparently.

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

So why focus on "why?"

 
Because if not then the problem will never be resolve, the OP will spent hundreds of dollars on Apple spray and the dog will still have the same need of chewing but this time will be something else or in some cases changing the chewing for aggressive behavior
 
Example: you go to the psychologist because you are afraid of the dark, the doctor just gives you pills for the anxiety but your fear of dark was never resolve, therefore you spend your entire life buying those pills instead of targeting the fear to cure it
 
Instead of buying apple spray maybe the OP should do a list of what might be going wrong, is the dog getting enough excersice? maybe thats the answer, is the dog bored? "oh no, you are bored, thats fine, stay that way and i'll just spray my furniture so you cant chew it".
 
I know dogs are not human but maybe we can put ourselves in that position for a minute, i take the TV, radio, internet, phone, etc away from you and keep you inside your house 23 hours of the day, you of course will look something to do during those 23 hours, lets say to start reading a book, i come home and i decide that i dont like the fact that you are reading my books, so i take it away from you, what would you do? maybe you will get mad at me, you are bored, you are frustrated and probably you will start acting aggressive because of that, so what would happen if instead of taking the book away i take you outside, give you something else to do, we go for a walk, we do excersice, etc?
 
Do you see my point? spraying the furniture wont take away the dog's frustration or boredom (if thats the case), if we dont focuse on why then the problem will get bigger with time and thats what i call a "time bomb"

Espencer,

Perhaps I am being vague.

What I am saying is that all dogs chew. Example: I work in a park. My dog is a very lucky dog. He comes to work with me and runs around in a park, often with other dogs, for eight-to-ten hours every day. He gets more than enough exercise, and he also gets a lot of mental stimulation because I work with training him throughout the day.

And you know what he does when he comes home? To unwind from his busy day at work? He chews. For a good fortyfive minutes, like a little fiend. He is doing it right now. He chews while I read this forum. Every evening. And when he was younger, if I didn't coat my computer in bitter apple and offer him a bully stick, he would have chewed my computer.

What I am saying is that asking "why does my dog chew?" doesn't yield any extra information. He chews because he's a dog, and because dogs chew things.

What I am saying is that you would look at my dog and tell me that he needs more exercise, but in reality he is chewing because he's processing his busy little day and he's probably a little overtired, and will be sacking out cold soon. So what I am saying is that when you ask "why," you don't necessarily get good information. You get an opportunity to state your opinion, but you lose an opportunity to observe what is actually happening.

I wonder about asking "why?" about normal dog behaviors because the dog cannot answer you. Therefore, many answers to the question "why" are about what humans think about dogs, and not about actually observing the dog. I also wonder about asking "why" because it leads to pathologizing normal dog behavior, and to strange expectations for dogs. My dog is not sitting at my feet chewing on his hoof right now because I have created a "time bomb." He is chewing because he enjoys chewing stuff. It's my job to teach him to what he can and cannot chew, not to tire him to the point that he is incapable of chewing anything, as if that were possible.